coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicants were born in 1935, 1936, 1949 and 1949 respectively and live in Budapest.
6.  The applicants, two married couples, were parties to a 1996 sale and purchase agreement concerning a flat. One of the applicants on the sellers’ side was registered in the land register only as the holder of an annotation rather than proprietor. Moreover, her predecessor (“the Predecessor”) was in the same situation, and it was the person who had sold the flat to the Predecessor in 1993 that was registered as the owner (“the Owner”). Because in 2000 the Predecessor had not been able to obtain from the Owner an authorisation to have himself registered as proprietor, neither his nor the applicants’ requests to have the ensuing transactions registered were granted by the District Land Registry.
7.  The applicants lodged an appeal with the Budapest Land Registry. They complained that, had they been informed of the procedure concerning the Predecessor and the Owner, they would have been able to obtain the necessary authorisation themselves, thereby enabling the registration of the chain of transactions.
8.  Although the missing authorisation had meanwhile been obtained and in fact submitted, the Land Registry dismissed the appeal. On 9 December 2005 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ request for judicial review. It relied on leading judgments of the Supreme Court, whose text was available only to the respondent Land Registry (which had also been respondent in the earlier procedures) but not to the applicants. In sum, the applicants’ ownership was not registered at that stage.
9.  In pursuit of the applicants’ petition for review, on 9 May 2006 the Supreme Court ordered that review proceedings concerning the merits of the case be instituted.
10.  On 15 November 2006 the Supreme Court’s review bench dismissed the applicants’ petition. This decision was served on their lawyer on 11 December 2006.
11.  The applicants subsequently submitted a request, under sections 86-88 of Act no. 141 of 1997 (the chapter concerning properties with an unresolved status in the land register), to have the situation of the property in question regularised in the land register.
12.  The applicants’ request was granted and the transaction eventually registered on 13 June 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kovachevets.
5.  In 1995 the applicant entered into contracts under which he undertook to export wheat to foreign companies. On 11 August 1995 the Council of Ministers of Bulgaria adopted Regulation No. 160/1995 whereby the export tax for wheat was increased from 35 United States dollars (USD) to USD 55. The new rate became effective on 25 August 1995.
6.  On 24 August 1995 the applicant had already loaded 6,333 metric tons of wheat on to a cargo ship. At 11.30 p.m. on the same day he submitted to the customs authorities in the port of Varna West the necessary customs documents. However, the applicant was not granted authorisation to export the shipment. Thereafter, he continued loading the ship and later paid the export tax at the newly-introduced higher rate, whereupon export authorisation was granted.
7.  On 8 October 1996 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Central Customs Office (Главно управление „Митници”) and the State Fund “Agriculture” (Държавен фонд „Земеделие”) under sections 45 and 55 of the Contracts and Obligations Act of 1951.
8.  In a judgment of 10 July 1998 the Sofia City Court dismissed the claim. The court found that the customs officers had not acted unlawfully and that in any event the applicant had not sustained any damage.
9.  The applicant appealed.
10.  In a judgment of 25 June 1999 the Sofia Appeal Court quashed the Sofia City Court’s judgment and referred the case for a fresh examination, indicating that the applicable law was the State Responsibility for Damage Act.
11.  The Central Customs Office appealed against the Sofia Appeal Court’s judgment. By decision of 19 April 2000, the Supreme Court of Cassation terminated the proceedings as the lower court’s decision to refer the case back to the court of first instance was not amenable to cassation appeal.
12.  In a judgment of 23 December 2003 the Sofia City Court established that the applicant had sustained damage and granted his claim.
13.  The proceedings continued on appeal before the Sofia Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation at least until 19 April 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kent.
5.  The applicant and his wife had two children, born in 1982 and 1987. The applicant’s wife died on 2 June 1999.
6.  On 5 October 2000 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social security benefits. He applied for benefits equivalent to those which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment (“Wpt”) and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance (“WMA”), payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). On 17 October 2000 his application was rejected as these benefits were only available to women. This decision was reconsidered without alteration on 25 October 2000.
7.  The applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal on 10 July 2001 and again his claim was rejected. In November 2001 the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Appeal Commissioner. Eventually permission was granted but his appeal was again rejected on 28 May 2004. The applicant again appealed to the Commissioner who rejected the applicant’s appeal on 13 December 2006.
8.  Finally, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), which was refused on 16 March 2007.
9.  At the time of his claim in 2000 the applicant was in receipt of child benefit.
6.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1949, respectively, and live in Budapest.
7.  The applicants are respectively 50% and 10% shareholders in D. Ltd. By decisions of the Budapest Regional Court and the Supreme Court, in 1998 the liquidation of D. Ltd was ordered and M. Ltd. appointed liquidator.
8.  In 2001 the applicants brought an official liability action against the two courts involved, claiming damages for the liquidation, which in their view had been ordered unlawfully.
9.  On 6 December 2002 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the action, holding that, although the liquidation had indeed been ordered unlawfully, the two courts’ culpability was not so extensive as to justify the establishment of their tort liability.
10.  On appeal, on 11 December 2003 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision but changed its reasoning. It held that the applicants had no locus standi in the case, since their company was in liquidation and only the liquidator had the capacity to conduct legal proceedings in its name.
11.  The applicants filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. They pleaded that their claim did not concern any loss suffered by the company itself. Rather, they personally sought compensation for the loss in value of their own shares which they had suffered on account of the unlawfully ordered liquidation.
12.  On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ petition, reiterating the position that they had no locus standi in the case. This decision was served after 11 March 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Łόdź.
6. On 30 June 1997 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) instituted criminal proceedings against an individual charged with financial fraud. The applicant, who was considered to be a victim, was entitled to lodge in the context of the criminal case a claim for damages sustained as a result of the crime.
7. On 30 July 1997 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) filed a civil claim for damages against the defendant on the applicant’s behalf. On 29 August 1997 the District Court admitted the claim.
8. A hearing scheduled for 25 January 2001 was adjourned because of the absence of the defendant, who had submitted a medical certificate indicating that he had health problems. On 13 February 2001 the defendant submitted another medical certificate stating that he had been admitted to a hospital. On 3 April 2001 the court held a hearing in the absence of the defendant. On 25 April 2001 the defendant submitted another medical certificate.
9. On 30 April 2001 the District Court ordered that the defendant be examined by a forensic specialist. On 23 July 2001 a medical report was submitted to the court. It stated that the defendant’s health prevented him from participating in the forthcoming hearings as he was to undergo surgery.
10. On 8 October 2001 the District Court stayed the proceedings and ordered the defendant to provide information on his medical treatment. The defendant failed to do so.
11. On 26 September 2002 the District Court issued an arrest warrant as the police had informed the court that the defendant had left his place of permanent residence. On 18 January 2003 the defendant was apprehended by the police and detained until 16 January 2004.
12. On 5 February 2003 the District Court again stayed the proceedings and ordered that the defendant be examined by a specialist. On 25 April 2003 a medical report was submitted to the court. It stated that the defendant’s health did not prevent him from participating in the proceedings.
13. On 25 September 2003 the court resumed the proceedings. On 28 October 2005 the court held a hearing.
14. The proceedings are currently pending.
15. On 14 October 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łódź Regional Court under section 5 of the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”).
16. On 3 December 2004 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court considered that the proceedings had lasted a long time but found no “unreasonable delays” considering that the conduct of the defendant had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. That period of delay could not be attributed to the judicial authorities as it had been caused by the fact that the defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s orders.
6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Gávavencsellő.
7.  The applicant is a Member of Parliament and delegate of the political party Fidesz – the Hungarian Civic Union (the “Fidesz”). During the parliamentary elections of 2002, he was a candidate in one of the electoral districts of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County. On 19 April 2002, prior to the second ballot round, a flyer was distributed in the applicant’s electoral district, signed by L.H., chairman of the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional General Assembly. The flyer read as follows:
“Dr. László Karakó, in his capacity as a member of the Fidesz... in the Regional General Assembly, regularly voted against the interests of the county. Moreover, in the debate concerning the route of the M3 highway, he did not support the version favourable to the county, with which − aside from the county − he probably harmed his own electoral district the most.”
8.  On 15 May 2002 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against L.H. with the Nyíregyháza District Court, accusing him of libel. Finding that the impugned act fell within the competence of public prosecution, the District Court transferred the case to the Nyíregyháza District Public Prosecutor’s Office in March 2004.
9.  The Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered the continuation of the criminal proceedings in April 2004. On 3 May 2004 the Public Prosecutor’s Office terminated the investigation, finding that there had been no crime committed within the realm of public prosecution. The applicant stated that this decision was only served on him on 1 December 2004. He lodged a complaint against this decision which was dismissed by the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office on 22 December 2004. The Prosecutor’s Office was of the view that the impugned act had occurred during the electoral campaign and, as a candidate, the applicant could not have been considered a public official. Therefore, the act did not concern a matter of public prosecution. The applicant submitted an application seeking a review of this decision to the Attorney General’s Office. It dismissed his application on 28 February 2005.
10.  On 29 January 2005 the applicant, acting as a private prosecutor, submitted an indictment against L.H. to the Nyíregyháza District Court, accusing the latter of having committed libel against him as a public official during official proceedings.
11.  On 2 May 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s indictment. It found that the impugned statement was a value judgment, with regard to which the limits of acceptable criticism were wider for a politician – who must display a greater degree of tolerance. No appeal lay against this decision.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Siemanowice.
6.  On 28 April 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of bribery, several counts of evasion of tax and customs duties and several counts of forgery, committed in an organised criminal gang.
7.  On 29 April 2005 the Katowice District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court referred to the complexity of the case and the considerable number of accused. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence and induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.
8.  Later, twenty-one other persons were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant.
9.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, like his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeal, he argued that the charge against him was based on unreliable and contradictory evidence.
10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on 22 July 2005, 20 October 2005, 20 January 2006, 29 March 2006, 28 June 2006, 27 September 2006, 4 January 2007 and 4 April 2007.
11.  On 17 April 2007 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with bribery, several counts of evasion of tax and customs duties, several counts of forgery and membership of an organised criminal gang. The bill of indictment also concerned twenty-one other persons.
12.  Further decisions extending the applicant’s detention were taken on 25 July 2007, 24 October 2007 and 27 February 2008.
In a decision given on 24 October 2007, the Katowice Court of Appeal Court criticised the manner in which the investigation had been conducted. It also referred to delays in the proceedings which amounted to six months. It acknowledged that almost all the evidence had been gathered and that the risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence had been marginal.
In a decision given on 27 February 2008, the Katowice Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant could be released on bail on payment of security of 800,000 Polish zlotys. The applicant requested the court to reduce the amount of bail. On 28 March 2008 the court reduced it to 300,000 Polish zlotys. The applicant paid the security and he was released on 30 April 2008.
13.  The criminal proceedings are currently pending before the first‑instance court.
4.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1966 respectively and live in Stavropol.
5.  As judges, the applicants were entitled to a service at. As the at had not been provided, the applicants sued the Pyatigorsk Town Council. On 10 June 2003 the Essentuki Town Court held for the applicants and ordered the council to:
“[P]rovide [the applicants] with a decent dwelling for a family of four, offering 12 m² per person and having an extra surface of 40 m² with regard to two family members’ right to extra surface: either 20 m² per person or a separate room per person.”
This judgment became binding on 8 September 2003, but was not enforced immediately.
6.  In September–November 2003 bailiffs several times inquired with the council whether it had available ats. In December 2003 and February 2004 the bailiffs requested the court to change the mode of execution to a cash payment. In September 2005 the bailiffs attached the council’s bank accounts and means of transport.
7.  In August 2004 the applicants and the council reached a settlement, but the council defaulted on its promise.
8.  On the council’s request, on 20 March 2006 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered a rehearing. The presidium found that the council had been the wrong defendant, and that the district court had awarded a at bigger than the applicants had been entitled to.
9.  In the course of the rehearing, on 22 October 2007 the applicants withdrew their claims and the proceedings were closed.
10.  In December 2007 the applicants were offered a at of 124.8 m² in a house in the centre of Stavropol, but they refused to accept it insisting that the at should be of 150 m². In the meantime, in 2006–07 the authorities subsidised the applicants’ rent.
5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Astrakhan.
6.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant gave birth to a daughter out of wedlock.
7.  On 11 November 2003 she lodged a claim with the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan against Mr A., with whom she allegedly had been in a relationship since 2000, in order to establish paternity and obtain child maintenance. In the course of the proceedings the applicant was represented by a counsel.
8.  On 15 December 2003 the court ordered a DNA test to be carried out. The blood samples were collected in Astrakhan and sent to a specialised institute in Moscow for a forensic genetic examination. According to the expert conclusion submitted on 19 March 2004, the probability that Mr A. was the father of the applicant’s daughter was 99.99%.
9.  On 2 June 2004 the court heard the defendant’s representative, who contested the admissibility of the DNA test on account of procedural shortcomings, and the applicant, who insisted on its accuracy; and rejected the applicant’s claim in full. It found that the applicant had failed to support her allegations. With respect to the expert forensic report the court found as follows:
“...Blood sampling for the expert report was entrusted to the Bureau of forensic-medical examinations in the Astrakhan Region...
According to the Instruction on organisation and production of expert examinations in Bureaus of forensic medical examinations, blood samples must be packed individually... An envelope must be supplied, with identifying information (on the basis of an identity document) and signatures of a medical worker who took the blood samples and two medical workers who were present during this procedure...
On the envelopes with the blood samples of Mr A., Ms Kalacheva and Ms K.D. [the applicant’s daughter] there are no data based on the identity documents of the above persons. Moreover, there are only two signatures on the envelopes, one of which belongs to a person who took the blood samples...
Taking into account that the blood samples were collected with serious violations of the Instruction..., the court is critical of the expert conclusion, since it cannot exclude the possibility that the blood samples received by the experts were not those collected from the parties.”
10.  The court found the other evidence submitted by the applicant, namely a photo showing her with the defendant and a badge in her name, issued by the hostel (where they allegedly met), insufficient to conclude that the defendant was her child’s father.
11.  The applicant and her lawyer lodged an appeal against this judgment, claiming that the case should be sent to a fresh examination due to the court’s failure to respect the civil procedural law. On 29 June 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the judgment of 2 June 2004. It mentioned that, under civil procedural law, an expert conclusion was not binding on the court, and that in the present case the DNA test, carried out in breach of the relevant procedure, was not corroborated by other evidence.
12.  On 20 June 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected an application for supervisory review lodged by the applicant’s lawyer.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Krasnodar.
6.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. He was subsequently granted Category 2 disability status and became entitled to various social benefits, including a 50% discount on housing charges.
7.  In March 2004 the municipal housing maintenance authority lodged a claim against the applicant, seeking to recover unpaid housing charges.
8.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant counterclaimed, seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He insisted that he had paid the housing charges on time and in full. The amount of the charges paid had been calculated to include the 50% discount to which he and his family were entitled.
9.  On 26 July 2004 the Justice of the Peace of the 47th Court Circuit of the Prikubanskiy District of Krasnodar partly found against the applicant and ordered him to pay outstanding housing charges. It rejected the applicant’s counterclaim, finding that by law only he, but not his family members, was entitled to the discount.
10.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. He challenged the first-instance court’s assessment of the facts and application of the legal provisions.
11.  On 1 October 2004 the applicant’s representative requested the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar to bring the Social Protection Department into the proceedings as a third party. The court granted this request and suspended the proceedings.
12.  The appeal hearings were subsequently scheduled for 24 December 2004 and 21 January 2005 but did not take place due to the presiding judge’s illness.
13.  On 2 February 2005 the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar upheld the judgment. The applicant received the summons on 3 February 2005 and therefore neither he nor his representative could attend the hearing. The judgment (определение) contained a notice to the effect that no appeal lay against it.
14.  On 9 February 2005 the applicant requested the court to resume the appeal proceedings since he had been summoned to the appeal hearing on 2 February 2005 belatedly.
15.  On 6 April 2005 the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar heard the parties and rejected the applicant’s request. The court established that the summons had been sent to the applicant on 1 February 2005, and there had been no evidence showing that the summons had reached him before the hearing on 2 February. Nevertheless, according to civil procedural law, improper summoning is not a ground for a review of the case.
16.  On 5 July 2005 the Krasnodarsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request for supervisory review proceedings.